Merton and Wandsworth London Assembly member Richard Tracey said he urged residents and businesses to support the proposals which could see Wimbledon connected to Seven Sisters, in north east London, via Tooting, Clapham Junction, and a number of central London stops.

Two alternatives have been identified: an underground ‘metro’ option from Wimbledon to Alexandra Palace and a ‘regional’ option that would link to more national rail stations and extend north into Hertfordshire.

Mr Tracey said: "This is very farsighted for south London, Wandsworth and Merton. I encourage residents and businesses to support it."

Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said: "If London and its economy are to keep moving then it’s essential that we crack on and get Crossrail 2 delivered.

"It’s a vital project not just for the capital, but also for the regions from which hordes of commuters struggle into work on packed carriages each day."

Comments

TfL today announced that they are reviewing the original Crossrail 2 route via Chelsea. They are now seeking replies from Outer SW London commuters on whether the Chelsea CR2 station should be

A. located on Kings Road as originally planned.
B. located at Lots Road, further away but alongside expensive new property developments.
C. Eliminated altogether, allowing a fast direct underground connection between Clapham Junction and Victoria.

For Outer SW London commuters, the obvious answer is C, as the dog-legged detour to Chelsea would add a pointless 5 minutes to our daily commutes to the City / Canary Wharf or West End.

A 5 minute delay may not seem like a lot, but it becomes even more important given that TfL have already admitted that trains are likely to be already full at Tottenham Court Road Crossrail 1 line, leading to delays for SW London commuters looking to change east for City / Canary Wharf. The cumulative effect of these delays may be that it may be quicker to get to the City / Canary Wharf using the existing "via Waterloo" route, undermining the whole rationale of CR2 as a congestion reliever for SW London.

A further benefit of removing the Chelsea detour is that it is £1 Billion cheaper. That's a lot of money for Boris to bung his Tory backers in Chelsea, especially after years of inflation busting fare rises and TfL budget cuts.

"The dog-legged detour to Chelsea will add a pointless 5 minutes to the daily commutes of Outer SW Londoners to the City / Canary Wharf or West End. Given that trains are likely to be already full at Tottenham Court Road Crossrail 1 line, the additional delay of a Chelsea stop may mean that it's quicker to get to the City / Canary Wharf from SW London using the existing "via Waterloo" route, undermining the whole rationale of CR2 as a congestion reliever for SW London. Spending an extra £1 Billion to delay the daily journeys of 10,000's is not justified."

Unless TfL receive enough consultation responses opposing the Chelsea CR2 stop, SW London will have to endure unjustified delays to our journeys for decades to come.

Further details of the Chelsea options are available at the TfL consultation page here: goo.gl/ixe28I
The Comet might want to use the illustration at http://goo.gl/HAQRWR

For Outer SW Londoners, the real story should be:
TfL today announced that they are reviewing the original Crossrail 2 route via Chelsea. They are now seeking replies from Outer SW London commuters on whether the Chelsea CR2 station should be
A. located on Kings Road as originally planned.
B. located at Lots Road, further away but alongside expensive new property developments.
C. Eliminated altogether, allowing a fast direct underground connection between Clapham Junction and Victoria.
For Outer SW London commuters, the obvious answer is C, as the dog-legged detour to Chelsea would add a pointless 5 minutes to our daily commutes to the City / Canary Wharf or West End.
A 5 minute delay may not seem like a lot, but it becomes even more important given that TfL have already admitted that trains are likely to be already full at Tottenham Court Road Crossrail 1 line, leading to delays for SW London commuters looking to change east for City / Canary Wharf. The cumulative effect of these delays may be that it may be quicker to get to the City / Canary Wharf using the existing "via Waterloo" route, undermining the whole rationale of CR2 as a congestion reliever for SW London.
A further benefit of removing the Chelsea detour is that it is £1 Billion cheaper. That's a lot of money for Boris to bung his Tory backers in Chelsea, especially after years of inflation busting fare rises and TfL budget cuts.
Visit the following TfL consultation response page to leave your comments: http://goo.gl/yOpseB
My comments will be as follows (feel free to copy):
"The dog-legged detour to Chelsea will add a pointless 5 minutes to the daily commutes of Outer SW Londoners to the City / Canary Wharf or West End. Given that trains are likely to be already full at Tottenham Court Road Crossrail 1 line, the additional delay of a Chelsea stop may mean that it's quicker to get to the City / Canary Wharf from SW London using the existing "via Waterloo" route, undermining the whole rationale of CR2 as a congestion reliever for SW London. Spending an extra £1 Billion to delay the daily journeys of 10,000's is not justified."
Unless TfL receive enough consultation responses opposing the Chelsea CR2 stop, SW London will have to endure unjustified delays to our journeys for decades to come.
Further details of the Chelsea options are available at the TfL consultation page here: goo.gl/ixe28I
The Comet might want to use the illustration at http://goo.gl/HAQRWRSurboTurbo

For Outer SW Londoners, the real story should be:

TfL today announced that they are reviewing the original Crossrail 2 route via Chelsea. They are now seeking replies from Outer SW London commuters on whether the Chelsea CR2 station should be

A. located on Kings Road as originally planned.
B. located at Lots Road, further away but alongside expensive new property developments.
C. Eliminated altogether, allowing a fast direct underground connection between Clapham Junction and Victoria.

For Outer SW London commuters, the obvious answer is C, as the dog-legged detour to Chelsea would add a pointless 5 minutes to our daily commutes to the City / Canary Wharf or West End.

A 5 minute delay may not seem like a lot, but it becomes even more important given that TfL have already admitted that trains are likely to be already full at Tottenham Court Road Crossrail 1 line, leading to delays for SW London commuters looking to change east for City / Canary Wharf. The cumulative effect of these delays may be that it may be quicker to get to the City / Canary Wharf using the existing "via Waterloo" route, undermining the whole rationale of CR2 as a congestion reliever for SW London.

A further benefit of removing the Chelsea detour is that it is £1 Billion cheaper. That's a lot of money for Boris to bung his Tory backers in Chelsea, especially after years of inflation busting fare rises and TfL budget cuts.

"The dog-legged detour to Chelsea will add a pointless 5 minutes to the daily commutes of Outer SW Londoners to the City / Canary Wharf or West End. Given that trains are likely to be already full at Tottenham Court Road Crossrail 1 line, the additional delay of a Chelsea stop may mean that it's quicker to get to the City / Canary Wharf from SW London using the existing "via Waterloo" route, undermining the whole rationale of CR2 as a congestion reliever for SW London. Spending an extra £1 Billion to delay the daily journeys of 10,000's is not justified."

Unless TfL receive enough consultation responses opposing the Chelsea CR2 stop, SW London will have to endure unjustified delays to our journeys for decades to come.

Further details of the Chelsea options are available at the TfL consultation page here: goo.gl/ixe28I
The Comet might want to use the illustration at http://goo.gl/HAQRWR

Score: 15

banterang
2:42pm Mon 9 Jun 14

**** me a well balanced post on a guardian page? what is the world coming to?

**** me a well balanced post on a guardian page? what is the world coming to?banterang

**** me a well balanced post on a guardian page? what is the world coming to?

Score: 12

CosmosLondon
4:02pm Mon 9 Jun 14

The more rail links we have the better. How people can be criticising improvements in London's infra-structure is beyond me.

Obviously you moaners do not commute daily on packed trains into London Waterloo or via tube links so do not appreciate the over crowding we endure.

The more rail links we have the better. How people can be criticising improvements in London's infra-structure is beyond me.
Obviously you moaners do not commute daily on packed trains into London Waterloo or via tube links so do not appreciate the over crowding we endure.CosmosLondon

The more rail links we have the better. How people can be criticising improvements in London's infra-structure is beyond me.

Obviously you moaners do not commute daily on packed trains into London Waterloo or via tube links so do not appreciate the over crowding we endure.

Score: -6

stephenjc
4:50pm Mon 9 Jun 14

More infrastructure is a very good thing. Unfortunately, current Crossrail 2 plans have some big flaws which are documented here http://ukrail.blogsp
ot.co.uk/2013/08/cro
ssrail-2-flaws.html . In particular, (1) the single central London station at Tottenham Court Road will be heavily overloaded (an additional stop at Green Park under Jermyn Street would help), (2) many journeys to the city may be faster via the overloaded Northern line at Tooting Broadway or Angel (3) Earlsfield is likely to get a much worse service (4) it doesn't tackle the real capacity crunch which is on the *fast* lines out of Waterloo, not the slow ones.

More infrastructure is a very good thing. Unfortunately, current Crossrail 2 plans have some big flaws which are documented here http://ukrail.blogsp
ot.co.uk/2013/08/cro
ssrail-2-flaws.html . In particular, (1) the single central London station at Tottenham Court Road will be heavily overloaded (an additional stop at Green Park under Jermyn Street would help), (2) many journeys to the city may be faster via the overloaded Northern line at Tooting Broadway or Angel (3) Earlsfield is likely to get a much worse service (4) it doesn't tackle the real capacity crunch which is on the *fast* lines out of Waterloo, not the slow ones.stephenjc

More infrastructure is a very good thing. Unfortunately, current Crossrail 2 plans have some big flaws which are documented here http://ukrail.blogsp
ot.co.uk/2013/08/cro
ssrail-2-flaws.html . In particular, (1) the single central London station at Tottenham Court Road will be heavily overloaded (an additional stop at Green Park under Jermyn Street would help), (2) many journeys to the city may be faster via the overloaded Northern line at Tooting Broadway or Angel (3) Earlsfield is likely to get a much worse service (4) it doesn't tackle the real capacity crunch which is on the *fast* lines out of Waterloo, not the slow ones.

Score: 17

[deleted]
5:13pm Mon 9 Jun 14

[deleted]

I'm retired, so I do not count as a commuter, but from what I can see of this the plans seem to concentrate on yet more rail services into places like Chelsea where everybody has a tractor to commute anyway and sod the outlaying commuters. Having said that, I'd like a quicker more direct route to a place like Epping, but not via Dalston, I went through there on a bus and it's a proverbial shitehole of a place.......alroutemaster

I'm retired, so I do not count as a commuter, but from what I can see of this the plans seem to concentrate on yet more rail services into places like Chelsea where everybody has a tractor to commute anyway and sod the outlaying commuters. Having said that, I'd like a quicker more direct route to a place like Epping, but not via Dalston, I went through there on a bus and it's a proverbial shitehole of a place.......

Score: 5

buggsie
5:17pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Shame I couldn't actually see a map of where this cross rail is supposed to be going - between Clapham Junction & Chelsea - we have enough building and haulage lorries around Lombard Road as it is.

Shame I couldn't actually see a map of where this cross rail is supposed to be going - between Clapham Junction & Chelsea - we have enough building and haulage lorries around Lombard Road as it is.buggsie

Shame I couldn't actually see a map of where this cross rail is supposed to be going - between Clapham Junction & Chelsea - we have enough building and haulage lorries around Lombard Road as it is.

Score: -8

Pawel_Si
5:41pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Why via Wimbledon and not say West Croydon? Seems pointless as Wimbledon already has plenty connections.

Why via Wimbledon and not say West Croydon? Seems pointless as Wimbledon already has plenty connections.Pawel_Si

Why via Wimbledon and not say West Croydon? Seems pointless as Wimbledon already has plenty connections.

Score: 5

Epsom Ian
8:49am Tue 10 Jun 14

a little bemused as to why the SW extends or Branches to Chessington South, hardly a busy line from Wimbledon

a little bemused as to why the SW extends or Branches to Chessington South, hardly a busy line from WimbledonEpsom Ian

a little bemused as to why the SW extends or Branches to Chessington South, hardly a busy line from Wimbledon

Score: 1

alroutemaster
10:01am Tue 10 Jun 14

Epsom Ian wrote…

a little bemused as to why the SW extends or Branches to Chessington South, hardly a busy line from Wimbledon

It WOULD have been busier if they had extended it south towards Dorking as originally intended eons ago........

[quote][p][bold]Epsom Ian[/bold] wrote:
a little bemused as to why the SW extends or Branches to Chessington South, hardly a busy line from Wimbledon[/p][/quote]It WOULD have been busier if they had extended it south towards Dorking as originally intended eons ago........alroutemaster

Epsom Ian wrote…

a little bemused as to why the SW extends or Branches to Chessington South, hardly a busy line from Wimbledon

It WOULD have been busier if they had extended it south towards Dorking as originally intended eons ago........

Score: 5

DB
12:13pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Epsom Ian wrote…

a little bemused as to why the SW extends or Branches to Chessington South, hardly a busy line from Wimbledon

It is because they are then going to try to build a totally new town next to Chessington to take advantage of this 'new capacity'.

[quote][p][bold]Epsom Ian[/bold] wrote:
a little bemused as to why the SW extends or Branches to Chessington South, hardly a busy line from Wimbledon[/p][/quote]It is because they are then going to try to build a totally new town next to Chessington to take advantage of this 'new capacity'.DB

Epsom Ian wrote…

a little bemused as to why the SW extends or Branches to Chessington South, hardly a busy line from Wimbledon

It is because they are then going to try to build a totally new town next to Chessington to take advantage of this 'new capacity'.

Score: -4

DB
12:23pm Tue 10 Jun 14

This is a great scheme for those living on the section where new infrastructure will actually be provided, but actually a disadvantage to the other areas.

Wimbledon is probably set to get the biggest advantage as it adds another method of getting into London to the District Line, SWT, FCC & Southern Services that it already has.

Contrast this with Surbiton. There is only a very overcrowded SWT service to start with, and this current proposal appears to actually expect to share the existing infrastructure with those services.

SWT cannot run a cohernet service as it is at the moment with one signal failure or train breakdown causing complete meltdown. What is going to happen when it has to give up some of it's capacity to a completely different entity?

You have to presume that the number of SWT services at peak times will decrease and they are the trains that most commuters will still want to get on, because they are the ones offering fast access to the West End at Waterloo or the City (via the Waterloo & City Line). This is where people have to go to work, and they won't want to sit on a train that meanders through Chelsea to do it!

This seems like bad news for most involved.

This is a great scheme for those living on the section where new infrastructure will actually be provided, but actually a disadvantage to the other areas.
Wimbledon is probably set to get the biggest advantage as it adds another method of getting into London to the District Line, SWT, FCC & Southern Services that it already has.
Contrast this with Surbiton. There is only a very overcrowded SWT service to start with, and this current proposal appears to actually expect to share the existing infrastructure with those services.
SWT cannot run a cohernet service as it is at the moment with one signal failure or train breakdown causing complete meltdown. What is going to happen when it has to give up some of it's capacity to a completely different entity?
You have to presume that the number of SWT services at peak times will decrease and they are the trains that most commuters will still want to get on, because they are the ones offering fast access to the West End at Waterloo or the City (via the Waterloo & City Line). This is where people have to go to work, and they won't want to sit on a train that meanders through Chelsea to do it!
This seems like bad news for most involved.DB

This is a great scheme for those living on the section where new infrastructure will actually be provided, but actually a disadvantage to the other areas.

Wimbledon is probably set to get the biggest advantage as it adds another method of getting into London to the District Line, SWT, FCC & Southern Services that it already has.

Contrast this with Surbiton. There is only a very overcrowded SWT service to start with, and this current proposal appears to actually expect to share the existing infrastructure with those services.

SWT cannot run a cohernet service as it is at the moment with one signal failure or train breakdown causing complete meltdown. What is going to happen when it has to give up some of it's capacity to a completely different entity?

You have to presume that the number of SWT services at peak times will decrease and they are the trains that most commuters will still want to get on, because they are the ones offering fast access to the West End at Waterloo or the City (via the Waterloo & City Line). This is where people have to go to work, and they won't want to sit on a train that meanders through Chelsea to do it!

This seems like bad news for most involved.

Score: 5

alroutemaster
1:48pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Pawel_Si wrote…

Why via Wimbledon and not say West Croydon? Seems pointless as Wimbledon already has plenty connections.

And West / East Croydon doesn't?

[quote][p][bold]Pawel_Si[/bold] wrote:
Why via Wimbledon and not say West Croydon? Seems pointless as Wimbledon already has plenty connections.[/p][/quote]And West / East Croydon doesn't?alroutemaster

Pawel_Si wrote…

Why via Wimbledon and not say West Croydon? Seems pointless as Wimbledon already has plenty connections.

And West / East Croydon doesn't?

Score: 3

labyrinth
1:54pm Tue 10 Jun 14

The question ought to be, why not extend the line to Cheam and Sutton? It is laughable that anyone should complain about Surbiton's access to London, when you can just turn up there & expect a train in ten minutes! In contrast, we have only 4 trains an hour from Cheam - yes, four! That for a location with so many commuters...once again, Richmond and Wimbledon get yet more ways to travel, but we in Cheam are left out.

The question ought to be, why not extend the line to Cheam and Sutton? It is laughable that anyone should complain about Surbiton's access to London, when you can just turn up there & expect a train in ten minutes! In contrast, we have only 4 trains an hour from Cheam - yes, four! That for a location with so many commuters...once again, Richmond and Wimbledon get yet more ways to travel, but we in Cheam are left out.labyrinth

The question ought to be, why not extend the line to Cheam and Sutton? It is laughable that anyone should complain about Surbiton's access to London, when you can just turn up there & expect a train in ten minutes! In contrast, we have only 4 trains an hour from Cheam - yes, four! That for a location with so many commuters...once again, Richmond and Wimbledon get yet more ways to travel, but we in Cheam are left out.

Score: 2

CosmosLondon
3:32pm Tue 10 Jun 14

DB wrote…

Epsom Ian wrote…

a little bemused as to why the SW extends or Branches to Chessington South, hardly a busy line from Wimbledon

It is because they are then going to try to build a totally new town next to Chessington to take advantage of this 'new capacity'.

Let's hope they do this as we need new towns to sort out the mess that is London's property crisis.
We need more houses and we need them fast. Youngsters have no chance of getting on the property ladder at the moment yet you lot are on here moaning about the frequency of the train service. GET A GRIP!

[quote][p][bold]DB[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Epsom Ian[/bold] wrote:
a little bemused as to why the SW extends or Branches to Chessington South, hardly a busy line from Wimbledon[/p][/quote]It is because they are then going to try to build a totally new town next to Chessington to take advantage of this 'new capacity'.[/p][/quote]Let's hope they do this as we need new towns to sort out the mess that is London's property crisis.
We need more houses and we need them fast. Youngsters have no chance of getting on the property ladder at the moment yet you lot are on here moaning about the frequency of the train service. GET A GRIP!CosmosLondon

DB wrote…

Epsom Ian wrote…

a little bemused as to why the SW extends or Branches to Chessington South, hardly a busy line from Wimbledon

It is because they are then going to try to build a totally new town next to Chessington to take advantage of this 'new capacity'.

Let's hope they do this as we need new towns to sort out the mess that is London's property crisis.
We need more houses and we need them fast. Youngsters have no chance of getting on the property ladder at the moment yet you lot are on here moaning about the frequency of the train service. GET A GRIP!

Score: 1

DB
3:12pm Tue 10 Jun 14

labyrinth wrote…

The question ought to be, why not extend the line to Cheam and Sutton? It is laughable that anyone should complain about Surbiton's access to London, when you can just turn up there & expect a train in ten minutes! In contrast, we have only 4 trains an hour from Cheam - yes, four! That for a location with so many commuters...once again, Richmond and Wimbledon get yet more ways to travel, but we in Cheam are left out.

How crowded are the existing trains from Cheam? The frequency of trains from Surbiton has actually become a bit of a disadvantage because so many people have been attracted to live in the area from more expensive parts of central London purely because they see the large number of trains and the quick commute time.

In reality, this has meant that it is physically impossible to get on some of the peak time trains, so you sometimes do have to wait 15 minutes or more anyway. If there are problems on the line, the station can get so crowded that they actually won't let you down onto the platform for safety reasons.

It has also had a massive effect on the house prices in the area. Parts of Surbiton have always been relatively expensive, but you can now pay £750k for a reasonable terraced house on the unfashionable border of Tolworth.

The problem with Crossrail 2 coming in is that it will provide no meaningful extra capacity, but will no doubt provide yet more reasons for Londoners to move here and further overcrowd the trains that we do have.

To be honest, I'd much rather get the train from somewhere like Teddington which would take twice as long on trains that run a quarter as frequently, but you will be guaranteeed to be able to get on the first train in, and importantly, should be able to do so in 5 years time.

Be careful what you wish for!

[quote][p][bold]labyrinth[/bold] wrote:
The question ought to be, why not extend the line to Cheam and Sutton? It is laughable that anyone should complain about Surbiton's access to London, when you can just turn up there & expect a train in ten minutes! In contrast, we have only 4 trains an hour from Cheam - yes, four! That for a location with so many commuters...once again, Richmond and Wimbledon get yet more ways to travel, but we in Cheam are left out.[/p][/quote]How crowded are the existing trains from Cheam? The frequency of trains from Surbiton has actually become a bit of a disadvantage because so many people have been attracted to live in the area from more expensive parts of central London purely because they see the large number of trains and the quick commute time.
In reality, this has meant that it is physically impossible to get on some of the peak time trains, so you sometimes do have to wait 15 minutes or more anyway. If there are problems on the line, the station can get so crowded that they actually won't let you down onto the platform for safety reasons.
It has also had a massive effect on the house prices in the area. Parts of Surbiton have always been relatively expensive, but you can now pay £750k for a reasonable terraced house on the unfashionable border of Tolworth.
The problem with Crossrail 2 coming in is that it will provide no meaningful extra capacity, but will no doubt provide yet more reasons for Londoners to move here and further overcrowd the trains that we do have.
To be honest, I'd much rather get the train from somewhere like Teddington which would take twice as long on trains that run a quarter as frequently, but you will be guaranteeed to be able to get on the first train in, and importantly, should be able to do so in 5 years time.
Be careful what you wish for!DB

labyrinth wrote…

The question ought to be, why not extend the line to Cheam and Sutton? It is laughable that anyone should complain about Surbiton's access to London, when you can just turn up there & expect a train in ten minutes! In contrast, we have only 4 trains an hour from Cheam - yes, four! That for a location with so many commuters...once again, Richmond and Wimbledon get yet more ways to travel, but we in Cheam are left out.

How crowded are the existing trains from Cheam? The frequency of trains from Surbiton has actually become a bit of a disadvantage because so many people have been attracted to live in the area from more expensive parts of central London purely because they see the large number of trains and the quick commute time.

In reality, this has meant that it is physically impossible to get on some of the peak time trains, so you sometimes do have to wait 15 minutes or more anyway. If there are problems on the line, the station can get so crowded that they actually won't let you down onto the platform for safety reasons.

It has also had a massive effect on the house prices in the area. Parts of Surbiton have always been relatively expensive, but you can now pay £750k for a reasonable terraced house on the unfashionable border of Tolworth.

The problem with Crossrail 2 coming in is that it will provide no meaningful extra capacity, but will no doubt provide yet more reasons for Londoners to move here and further overcrowd the trains that we do have.

To be honest, I'd much rather get the train from somewhere like Teddington which would take twice as long on trains that run a quarter as frequently, but you will be guaranteeed to be able to get on the first train in, and importantly, should be able to do so in 5 years time.

Be careful what you wish for!

Score: 0

jswan1
4:29pm Tue 10 Jun 14

It sounds like a brilliant idea and infrastructure is important but I will probably be retired by the time it is finished.

It sounds like a brilliant idea and infrastructure is important but I will probably be retired by the time it is finished.jswan1

It sounds like a brilliant idea and infrastructure is important but I will probably be retired by the time it is finished.

Score: -4

DB
4:41pm Tue 10 Jun 14

CosmosLondon wrote…

DB wrote…

Epsom Ian wrote…

a little bemused as to why the SW extends or Branches to Chessington South, hardly a busy line from Wimbledon

It is because they are then going to try to build a totally new town next to Chessington to take advantage of this 'new capacity'.

Let's hope they do this as we need new towns to sort out the mess that is London's property crisis. We need more houses and we need them fast. Youngsters have no chance of getting on the property ladder at the moment yet you lot are on here moaning about the frequency of the train service. GET A GRIP!

That's not quite the whole story, though, is it?

The ridiculously high house price situation has got more to do with lax lending and government policy than it has with actual demand.

If they build another 5,000 houses in Chessington and that drives the local average price down from £500k to £350k, how does that help a young person on £30k a year to buy one when the bank is only going to lend them £100k?

The answer is that it won't but that the new houses will be bought up by investors and those who have already made money out of the property boom or have access to borrowed money under the current government get-rich-quick schemes like Help to Buy.

To get young people into houses worth reasonable multiples of their own income, the prices much completely crash and that can only happen by tightening the money supply and stopping making houses look like a good investment to those who already own one. Unfortunately, the current government are scrabbling around to do exactly the opposite.

[quote][p][bold]CosmosLondon[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]DB[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Epsom Ian[/bold] wrote: a little bemused as to why the SW extends or Branches to Chessington South, hardly a busy line from Wimbledon[/p][/quote]It is because they are then going to try to build a totally new town next to Chessington to take advantage of this 'new capacity'.[/p][/quote]Let's hope they do this as we need new towns to sort out the mess that is London's property crisis. We need more houses and we need them fast. Youngsters have no chance of getting on the property ladder at the moment yet you lot are on here moaning about the frequency of the train service. GET A GRIP![/p][/quote]That's not quite the whole story, though, is it?
The ridiculously high house price situation has got more to do with lax lending and government policy than it has with actual demand.
If they build another 5,000 houses in Chessington and that drives the local average price down from £500k to £350k, how does that help a young person on £30k a year to buy one when the bank is only going to lend them £100k?
The answer is that it won't but that the new houses will be bought up by investors and those who have already made money out of the property boom or have access to borrowed money under the current government get-rich-quick schemes like Help to Buy.
To get young people into houses worth reasonable multiples of their own income, the prices much completely crash and that can only happen by tightening the money supply and stopping making houses look like a good investment to those who already own one. Unfortunately, the current government are scrabbling around to do exactly the opposite.DB

CosmosLondon wrote…

DB wrote…

Epsom Ian wrote…

a little bemused as to why the SW extends or Branches to Chessington South, hardly a busy line from Wimbledon

It is because they are then going to try to build a totally new town next to Chessington to take advantage of this 'new capacity'.

Let's hope they do this as we need new towns to sort out the mess that is London's property crisis. We need more houses and we need them fast. Youngsters have no chance of getting on the property ladder at the moment yet you lot are on here moaning about the frequency of the train service. GET A GRIP!

That's not quite the whole story, though, is it?

The ridiculously high house price situation has got more to do with lax lending and government policy than it has with actual demand.

If they build another 5,000 houses in Chessington and that drives the local average price down from £500k to £350k, how does that help a young person on £30k a year to buy one when the bank is only going to lend them £100k?

The answer is that it won't but that the new houses will be bought up by investors and those who have already made money out of the property boom or have access to borrowed money under the current government get-rich-quick schemes like Help to Buy.

To get young people into houses worth reasonable multiples of their own income, the prices much completely crash and that can only happen by tightening the money supply and stopping making houses look like a good investment to those who already own one. Unfortunately, the current government are scrabbling around to do exactly the opposite.

Score: 0

BenderTheMerciful
5:04pm Tue 10 Jun 14

hahaha no one in their right mind would invest in any type of transport link that came near Croydon. We all know what happened to Croydon once the Addos were able to get the Tram into central Croydon. Place looks like North Korea full of ugly Only Way is Essex zombies.

hahaha no one in their right mind would invest in any type of transport link that came near Croydon. We all know what happened to Croydon once the Addos were able to get the Tram into central Croydon. Place looks like North Korea full of ugly Only Way is Essex zombies.BenderTheMerciful

hahaha no one in their right mind would invest in any type of transport link that came near Croydon. We all know what happened to Croydon once the Addos were able to get the Tram into central Croydon. Place looks like North Korea full of ugly Only Way is Essex zombies.

Score: -5

BenderTheMerciful
5:07pm Tue 10 Jun 14

CosmosLondon wrote…

DB wrote…

Epsom Ian wrote…

a little bemused as to why the SW extends or Branches to Chessington South, hardly a busy line from Wimbledon

It is because they are then going to try to build a totally new town next to Chessington to take advantage of this 'new capacity'.

Let's hope they do this as we need new towns to sort out the mess that is London's property crisis.
We need more houses and we need them fast. Youngsters have no chance of getting on the property ladder at the moment yet you lot are on here moaning about the frequency of the train service. GET A GRIP!

There is no London Property Crisis. The only crisis is faced by the UK in that the rest of the country does not have a distributed economy to support it. It is all centred around London. Think of London as a black hole with a couple of transportation hubs for goods spread around it.

[quote][p][bold]CosmosLondon[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]DB[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Epsom Ian[/bold] wrote:
a little bemused as to why the SW extends or Branches to Chessington South, hardly a busy line from Wimbledon[/p][/quote]It is because they are then going to try to build a totally new town next to Chessington to take advantage of this 'new capacity'.[/p][/quote]Let's hope they do this as we need new towns to sort out the mess that is London's property crisis.
We need more houses and we need them fast. Youngsters have no chance of getting on the property ladder at the moment yet you lot are on here moaning about the frequency of the train service. GET A GRIP![/p][/quote]There is no London Property Crisis. The only crisis is faced by the UK in that the rest of the country does not have a distributed economy to support it. It is all centred around London. Think of London as a black hole with a couple of transportation hubs for goods spread around it.BenderTheMerciful

CosmosLondon wrote…

DB wrote…

Epsom Ian wrote…

a little bemused as to why the SW extends or Branches to Chessington South, hardly a busy line from Wimbledon

It is because they are then going to try to build a totally new town next to Chessington to take advantage of this 'new capacity'.

Let's hope they do this as we need new towns to sort out the mess that is London's property crisis.
We need more houses and we need them fast. Youngsters have no chance of getting on the property ladder at the moment yet you lot are on here moaning about the frequency of the train service. GET A GRIP!

There is no London Property Crisis. The only crisis is faced by the UK in that the rest of the country does not have a distributed economy to support it. It is all centred around London. Think of London as a black hole with a couple of transportation hubs for goods spread around it.

Score: -4

alroutemaster
5:24pm Tue 10 Jun 14

All the comments about housing and commuting from here or there would be unnecessary if we had a government in the last 50 years that had controlled immigration and birth rates. Then we wouldn't need to concrete over the whole countryside to accommodate and house these people, and build yet more infrastructure etc.

All the comments about housing and commuting from here or there would be unnecessary if we had a government in the last 50 years that had controlled immigration and birth rates. Then we wouldn't need to concrete over the whole countryside to accommodate and house these people, and build yet more infrastructure etc.alroutemaster

All the comments about housing and commuting from here or there would be unnecessary if we had a government in the last 50 years that had controlled immigration and birth rates. Then we wouldn't need to concrete over the whole countryside to accommodate and house these people, and build yet more infrastructure etc.

Score: -6

CosmosLondon
9:08am Wed 11 Jun 14

DB wrote…

CosmosLondon wrote…

DB wrote…

Epsom Ian wrote…

a little bemused as to why the SW extends or Branches to Chessington South, hardly a busy line from Wimbledon

It is because they are then going to try to build a totally new town next to Chessington to take advantage of this 'new capacity'.

Let's hope they do this as we need new towns to sort out the mess that is London's property crisis. We need more houses and we need them fast. Youngsters have no chance of getting on the property ladder at the moment yet you lot are on here moaning about the frequency of the train service. GET A GRIP!

That's not quite the whole story, though, is it?

The ridiculously high house price situation has got more to do with lax lending and government policy than it has with actual demand.

If they build another 5,000 houses in Chessington and that drives the local average price down from £500k to £350k, how does that help a young person on £30k a year to buy one when the bank is only going to lend them £100k?

The answer is that it won't but that the new houses will be bought up by investors and those who have already made money out of the property boom or have access to borrowed money under the current government get-rich-quick schemes like Help to Buy.

To get young people into houses worth reasonable multiples of their own income, the prices much completely crash and that can only happen by tightening the money supply and stopping making houses look like a good investment to those who already own one. Unfortunately, the current government are scrabbling around to do exactly the opposite.

Yawn.... you are totally missing the point!

[quote][p][bold]DB[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]CosmosLondon[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]DB[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Epsom Ian[/bold] wrote: a little bemused as to why the SW extends or Branches to Chessington South, hardly a busy line from Wimbledon[/p][/quote]It is because they are then going to try to build a totally new town next to Chessington to take advantage of this 'new capacity'.[/p][/quote]Let's hope they do this as we need new towns to sort out the mess that is London's property crisis. We need more houses and we need them fast. Youngsters have no chance of getting on the property ladder at the moment yet you lot are on here moaning about the frequency of the train service. GET A GRIP![/p][/quote]That's not quite the whole story, though, is it?
The ridiculously high house price situation has got more to do with lax lending and government policy than it has with actual demand.
If they build another 5,000 houses in Chessington and that drives the local average price down from £500k to £350k, how does that help a young person on £30k a year to buy one when the bank is only going to lend them £100k?
The answer is that it won't but that the new houses will be bought up by investors and those who have already made money out of the property boom or have access to borrowed money under the current government get-rich-quick schemes like Help to Buy.
To get young people into houses worth reasonable multiples of their own income, the prices much completely crash and that can only happen by tightening the money supply and stopping making houses look like a good investment to those who already own one. Unfortunately, the current government are scrabbling around to do exactly the opposite.[/p][/quote]Yawn.... you are totally missing the point!CosmosLondon

DB wrote…

CosmosLondon wrote…

DB wrote…

Epsom Ian wrote…

a little bemused as to why the SW extends or Branches to Chessington South, hardly a busy line from Wimbledon

It is because they are then going to try to build a totally new town next to Chessington to take advantage of this 'new capacity'.

Let's hope they do this as we need new towns to sort out the mess that is London's property crisis. We need more houses and we need them fast. Youngsters have no chance of getting on the property ladder at the moment yet you lot are on here moaning about the frequency of the train service. GET A GRIP!

That's not quite the whole story, though, is it?

The ridiculously high house price situation has got more to do with lax lending and government policy than it has with actual demand.

If they build another 5,000 houses in Chessington and that drives the local average price down from £500k to £350k, how does that help a young person on £30k a year to buy one when the bank is only going to lend them £100k?

The answer is that it won't but that the new houses will be bought up by investors and those who have already made money out of the property boom or have access to borrowed money under the current government get-rich-quick schemes like Help to Buy.

To get young people into houses worth reasonable multiples of their own income, the prices much completely crash and that can only happen by tightening the money supply and stopping making houses look like a good investment to those who already own one. Unfortunately, the current government are scrabbling around to do exactly the opposite.

Yawn.... you are totally missing the point!

Score: -3

CosmosLondon
9:07am Wed 11 Jun 14

alroutemaster wrote…

All the comments about housing and commuting from here or there would be unnecessary if we had a government in the last 50 years that had controlled immigration and birth rates. Then we wouldn't need to concrete over the whole countryside to accommodate and house these people, and build yet more infrastructure etc.

What a nasty statement that is to make.
How do you propose we should control birth rates?

[quote][p][bold]alroutemaster[/bold] wrote:
All the comments about housing and commuting from here or there would be unnecessary if we had a government in the last 50 years that had controlled immigration and birth rates. Then we wouldn't need to concrete over the whole countryside to accommodate and house these people, and build yet more infrastructure etc.[/p][/quote]What a nasty statement that is to make.
How do you propose we should control birth rates?CosmosLondon

alroutemaster wrote…

All the comments about housing and commuting from here or there would be unnecessary if we had a government in the last 50 years that had controlled immigration and birth rates. Then we wouldn't need to concrete over the whole countryside to accommodate and house these people, and build yet more infrastructure etc.

What a nasty statement that is to make.
How do you propose we should control birth rates?

Score: 4

alroutemaster
9:47am Wed 11 Jun 14

CosmosLondon wrote…

alroutemaster wrote…

All the comments about housing and commuting from here or there would be unnecessary if we had a government in the last 50 years that had controlled immigration and birth rates. Then we wouldn't need to concrete over the whole countryside to accommodate and house these people, and build yet more infrastructure etc.

What a nasty statement that is to make.
How do you propose we should control birth rates?

By stopping immigration (the main breeders) and second by making it less attractive to breed indiscriminately, in other words, remove the financial incentives (child allowance, free council housing for single mums, etc. etc.)

[quote][p][bold]CosmosLondon[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]alroutemaster[/bold] wrote:
All the comments about housing and commuting from here or there would be unnecessary if we had a government in the last 50 years that had controlled immigration and birth rates. Then we wouldn't need to concrete over the whole countryside to accommodate and house these people, and build yet more infrastructure etc.[/p][/quote]What a nasty statement that is to make.
How do you propose we should control birth rates?[/p][/quote]By stopping immigration (the main breeders) and second by making it less attractive to breed indiscriminately, in other words, remove the financial incentives (child allowance, free council housing for single mums, etc. etc.)alroutemaster

CosmosLondon wrote…

alroutemaster wrote…

All the comments about housing and commuting from here or there would be unnecessary if we had a government in the last 50 years that had controlled immigration and birth rates. Then we wouldn't need to concrete over the whole countryside to accommodate and house these people, and build yet more infrastructure etc.

What a nasty statement that is to make.
How do you propose we should control birth rates?

By stopping immigration (the main breeders) and second by making it less attractive to breed indiscriminately, in other words, remove the financial incentives (child allowance, free council housing for single mums, etc. etc.)

Score: 0

DB
11:33am Wed 11 Jun 14

CosmosLondon wrote…

DB wrote…

CosmosLondon wrote…

DB wrote…

Epsom Ian wrote…

a little bemused as to why the SW extends or Branches to Chessington South, hardly a busy line from Wimbledon

It is because they are then going to try to build a totally new town next to Chessington to take advantage of this 'new capacity'.

Let's hope they do this as we need new towns to sort out the mess that is London's property crisis. We need more houses and we need them fast. Youngsters have no chance of getting on the property ladder at the moment yet you lot are on here moaning about the frequency of the train service. GET A GRIP!

That's not quite the whole story, though, is it? The ridiculously high house price situation has got more to do with lax lending and government policy than it has with actual demand. If they build another 5,000 houses in Chessington and that drives the local average price down from £500k to £350k, how does that help a young person on £30k a year to buy one when the bank is only going to lend them £100k? The answer is that it won't but that the new houses will be bought up by investors and those who have already made money out of the property boom or have access to borrowed money under the current government get-rich-quick schemes like Help to Buy. To get young people into houses worth reasonable multiples of their own income, the prices much completely crash and that can only happen by tightening the money supply and stopping making houses look like a good investment to those who already own one. Unfortunately, the current government are scrabbling around to do exactly the opposite.

Yawn.... you are totally missing the point!

You will have to enlighten me as to what the point is. Building more houses will not solve the current house PRICE crisis in London whilst there are still a lot of wealthy investors prepared and able to pay the high prices.

A massive building programme might bring prices down a few %, but young people will still be unable to afford to buy houses.

There is not a massive shortage of houses per se, it is just an affordability issue and that won't be solved by just increasing supply.

[quote][p][bold]CosmosLondon[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]DB[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CosmosLondon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DB[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Epsom Ian[/bold] wrote: a little bemused as to why the SW extends or Branches to Chessington South, hardly a busy line from Wimbledon[/p][/quote]It is because they are then going to try to build a totally new town next to Chessington to take advantage of this 'new capacity'.[/p][/quote]Let's hope they do this as we need new towns to sort out the mess that is London's property crisis. We need more houses and we need them fast. Youngsters have no chance of getting on the property ladder at the moment yet you lot are on here moaning about the frequency of the train service. GET A GRIP![/p][/quote]That's not quite the whole story, though, is it? The ridiculously high house price situation has got more to do with lax lending and government policy than it has with actual demand. If they build another 5,000 houses in Chessington and that drives the local average price down from £500k to £350k, how does that help a young person on £30k a year to buy one when the bank is only going to lend them £100k? The answer is that it won't but that the new houses will be bought up by investors and those who have already made money out of the property boom or have access to borrowed money under the current government get-rich-quick schemes like Help to Buy. To get young people into houses worth reasonable multiples of their own income, the prices much completely crash and that can only happen by tightening the money supply and stopping making houses look like a good investment to those who already own one. Unfortunately, the current government are scrabbling around to do exactly the opposite.[/p][/quote]Yawn.... you are totally missing the point![/p][/quote]You will have to enlighten me as to what the point is. Building more houses will not solve the current house PRICE crisis in London whilst there are still a lot of wealthy investors prepared and able to pay the high prices.
A massive building programme might bring prices down a few %, but young people will still be unable to afford to buy houses.
There is not a massive shortage of houses per se, it is just an affordability issue and that won't be solved by just increasing supply.DB

CosmosLondon wrote…

DB wrote…

CosmosLondon wrote…

DB wrote…

Epsom Ian wrote…

a little bemused as to why the SW extends or Branches to Chessington South, hardly a busy line from Wimbledon

It is because they are then going to try to build a totally new town next to Chessington to take advantage of this 'new capacity'.

Let's hope they do this as we need new towns to sort out the mess that is London's property crisis. We need more houses and we need them fast. Youngsters have no chance of getting on the property ladder at the moment yet you lot are on here moaning about the frequency of the train service. GET A GRIP!

That's not quite the whole story, though, is it? The ridiculously high house price situation has got more to do with lax lending and government policy than it has with actual demand. If they build another 5,000 houses in Chessington and that drives the local average price down from £500k to £350k, how does that help a young person on £30k a year to buy one when the bank is only going to lend them £100k? The answer is that it won't but that the new houses will be bought up by investors and those who have already made money out of the property boom or have access to borrowed money under the current government get-rich-quick schemes like Help to Buy. To get young people into houses worth reasonable multiples of their own income, the prices much completely crash and that can only happen by tightening the money supply and stopping making houses look like a good investment to those who already own one. Unfortunately, the current government are scrabbling around to do exactly the opposite.

Yawn.... you are totally missing the point!

You will have to enlighten me as to what the point is. Building more houses will not solve the current house PRICE crisis in London whilst there are still a lot of wealthy investors prepared and able to pay the high prices.

A massive building programme might bring prices down a few %, but young people will still be unable to afford to buy houses.

There is not a massive shortage of houses per se, it is just an affordability issue and that won't be solved by just increasing supply.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about the editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here